IN
SEARCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE EREROUK BASILICA
By: Dickran Kouymjian
It is one of the enigmas of art history that an important monument
remains unremembered in the historical sources. This is seemingly
the case with the Armenian basilican church called Ererouk. The impressive
ruins of this church are located in a deserted area of the Republic
of Armenia close by the Akhurian River on the Turkish-Armenian frontier.
The site is a few kilometers southeast of the ruined and deserted
medieval city of Ani. What little we know of its recent and past history
will be presented in this notice.
The plan of the church shows it to have been a basilica and the largest
among existing Armenian basilicas. This type of structure was in common
use throughout the Roman Empire, in both east and west, as an administrative
building with no religious connotations. After the acceptance of Christianity
in the fourth century, the basilica was the favorite construction
used for large churches, and since a building was found in nearly
every city of the Empire, it became a sort of standard type of Christian
religious edifice. The plan of Ererouk is similar to a series of Armenian
basilicas -- K'asagh, Eghvard, Dvin, Ashtarak (Ciranavor), Cicernavank',
Tekor - in that it had an interior composed of three aisles or naves,
the central and largest one of which was separated from the others
by pillars which also helped support the roof. It differed from them,
(except perhaps for Dvin and Cicernavank') by the fact that its central
nave had a roof, perhaps of wood, which was higher than those covering
the side aisles, thus forming a clerestory. This type was usually
termed an Hellenistic Basilica, as opposed to the Oriental Basilica
in which all three aisles were covered by a single roof. Though the
central roof may have been covered by a wooden roof, the side aisles
were vaulted in stone. The use of wood for roofing was totally uncharacteristic
of Armenian architecture in this period, but was a common feature
of the Hellenistic type basilica found in neighboring Syria.
At the eastern end of the church was the apse, flanked by two lateral
chambers. At the western end there were two square tower chambers
which were salient to the west and to the north and south respectively.
On the north and south side were covered porches, established in the
lateral area created by the protruding chambers; they were covered
by a wooded roof supported by arches which extended from the pilasters
on the wall (still visible on the church today) to disengaged pillars.
There were smaller external apses at the east end of each of these
porches. At the west end of the area between the two chambers was
also covered and had an arcade and a monumental portal entrance. On
the south wall were two additional entrances. The whole church was
built on a platform -- called a stylobate in classical temple architecture
-- of six steps. Some scholars speculate that originally there had
been a pagan temple on the site dating from the second or third century
A. D.
The architectural evolution of the church from the fifth to the seventh
century has been discussed in detail by many specialists, most recently
A. Khatchtrian. Our concern is not with tectonic considerations but
with the history of the monument. Scholars are divided as to whether
it was founded in the fifth or sixth century; there is not a single
textual reference to a church by that name in Armenian sources, and
the earliest dated inscription on the church is of the eleventh century.
Nicholas Marr, the first to devote a monograph especially to the church,
was of the opinion that it dated to the end of the fifth or early
sixth century. T'oros T'oramanian who accompanied Marr on the first
excavation of the church said it had a fifth century foundation. Josef
Stryzgowski in his monumental work on Armenian architecture was for
a dating in the first half of the fifth century, so also the Italian
Cuneo and Alpago-Novello. Haroutyan and Safaryan vote for the fifth
century; Krautheimer "near or before 550", Khatchatrian,
"avec certitude du Ve siecle et de la considerer peut-etre comme
la premire dans la serie des basiliques arméniennes analogues
(p.45)", but M. Thierry in a review of Khatchatrian's books says,
"L'auteur nous dit bien que l'église, d'après l'inscription,
est anterieure au VIIe siecle mais l'argument stylistique qui lui
permet de remonter au Ve nous parait demme de fondement, une étude
comparative même rapide demontrera aisement que le decor est
beaucoup plus proche de celui de monuments syrians du VIe siecle."
The only clue beyond comparison of architectural style and decorative
motifs with other dated Armenian and Syrian buildings is a Greek inscription
on the eastern end of the south facade which, though bearing no date
and no other revealing information, is on paleographic grounds to
be dated no later than the seventh century. Thoramanian, Marr, Khatcharian
and others were also sure that the original structure of the fifth-sixth
century underwent changes during the sixth-seventh centuries; this
change may have been accompanied by additions in decoration by the
use of then current motives which may serve as the source for Thierry's
statement on the closeness of the external decoration to the sixth
century Syria.
Beyond this we know nothing about Ererouk in the period before the
seventh-century Arab occupation of Armenia. The location of the basilica
is in the domains owned by the Armenian Kamasarakan family and like
the neighboring church of Mren, it was erected by that family. The
later church was acquired in the late eighth century (783) by Ashot
Msaker, the head of a rapidly rising and rival princely family, the
Bagratuni.
That the Bagratuni had possession of Ererouk in the early 10th century
is ascertained beyond a doubt by an inscription, yet when and how
they took control of Ererouk is still unclear. In fact, there is no
evidence about the building during the whole of the Arab period (seventh
to ninth centuries) except possibly an undated inscription to the
north of the apse in the interior of the ruined church.
The earlier (tenth century) inscription is in part as follows: "I,
Yakob (Hakop) the priest who came from the city and plain to this
village and this holy martyrdom ( ). . . .renovated (rebuilt) it (i.e.
the church of Ererouk) in the name of Karapet (i.e. John the Baptist)
and promartyr (Armenian: ):. . . . ." Marr pointed out that the
term 'city and plain' (k'aghak u dasht) was employed in Armenian sources
of the sixth and seventh centuries and afterward up to the tenth century,
but not later. Therefore, the building was restored or rebuilt, probably
in the tenth century, or perhaps as early as the sixth-seventh century,
thus, if the latter date be accepted it could be an inscription referring
to the sixth century changes mentioned above. Of more interest to
our immediate problem is the term martyrium (vkayaran) used by Hakob
to refer to the structure. In the earlier Greek inscription presented
above, the term sanctuary ( ) was used; in neither case was the word
church employed. If the church in the tenth or an earlier century
was indeed a martyrium, to whom was it dedicated? Since Hakob's reconstruction
was in honor of Karapet (presumably John the Baptist, the protomartyr)
then the logical and, indeed, with the evidence at hand, the only
conclusion is that the church was dedicated to the martyred St. John.
But whether in fact the basilica was called St. John before the time
of the inscription of Hakob the priest, or for that matter in the
period after it, we do not know. Perhaps some day an unidentified
church of St.. John the Baptist may be discovered in the sources which
could be identified with Ererouk and add to our meagre information.
This brings us to the eleventh century when the whole of the Ayrarat
valley and the province of Shirak was in the hands of the Bagratouni
family. By 885/7 the new Bagratid Armenian Kingdom was secured and
in the tenth century, Ani, a city on the other side of the Akhurian
River from Ererouk, became its capital. From the height of the Bagratid
period comes our first tangible, unimpeachable evidence, the famous
inscription of 1038, which for the first time records the name of
the church, or more probably the village in which the church was located.
The history of the inscription is indeed the history of the modern
discovery of the basilica and its entry as a name in the annals of
history and art history. It was N. Shakhatunian who first brought
Ererouk into view in the second volume of his work Etchmiadzin and
the Surrounding Area published in 1842. Shakat'unian had visited the
ruins, measured them, and recorded the inscription found to the top
left of the eastern door of the south facade of the church. It was
inscribed on three large rectangular stones. It began "In the
name of God in the year 487 (of the Armenian Era, which is 1038 A.D.),"
and continues, "I the pious Queen, daughter of the Abas, spouse
of Smbat Shahanshah and mother of Ashot. who freed the tax (T'astak)
of Ererouk (zErervac') for the sons of my son Smbat Shahanshah. .
." Smbat Shahanshah can only refer to Hovhannes-Smbat, Bagratid
King of Ani who died shortly after in 1041. We have no other references
to his wife or even her name, and do not know about her son Ashot
or her other son, Smbat, if the inscription and its reading is accurate.
She could have been the daughter of Abas. The drawing of the inscription
along with Shankhat'unian's description was published by Alishan in
his Shirak and later again by Ep'rikian in his natural geography.
Alishan accompanied his short notice on Ererouk with an engraving
of the ruins signed by D. Yessayan and his own reading of the inscription.
In 1913 Garigan (then Vartapet) Hovsepian published the inscription
again, this time with a photograph (after Marr?) which showed that
the third and bottom stone on which the inscription was carved was
missing from its place. Hovsepian read the date as 477 i.e. 1038,
but a careful look at his photo shows the second letter to more like
(20) than (70). Most recently Manandyan again gives a partial transcription
of the inscription when discussing the term t'astak. As will be seen
below the lower broken and damaged stone has been restored to its
proper place.
Marr also records a second inscription with the date 1038, but without
the mention of any names, carved in the lunette above the same door.
Thus it is clear that the church or village called Ererouk had passed
by this period into Bagratuni possession. For a century and a half
there is no reference to the Basilica. Because of its proximity to
Ani, we must assume that it underwent the same fate as that city.
In 1045 Ani was finally occupied, after a long struggle, by the Byzantine
army. The Armenian King Gagik, a cousin of Hovhannes Smbat, after
being tricked into coming to Constantinople while his capital was
being seized by imperial troops, received in exchange lands in the
theme of Lykandos in Cappadocia. The Byzantine strategy against the
Seljuk Turkish invasions of the Near East was to absorb Armenia directly
into the Empire and confront the Turks with imperial soldiers instead
of the troops of its "unreliable Armenian allies and coreligionists"
. The tactic failed disastrously for Byzantium and Armeina alike.
In 1064 Ani, its Armenia population and Greek defenders, fell to Sultan
Alp Arslan after a bitter siege. A few years later, the Bagratid Kingdom
of Kars was also taken by the Turks, again from the Byzantines who
had acquired only just before from King Gagik of Kars, for another
exchange in land. We must assume that nearby Ererouk also came under
Seljuk control. The Seljuks themselves did not keep Ani for long,
but sold it to their vassal allies, the Muslim Shaddadids, a family
of Kurdish origin, which already had control of Dvin and Ganja. tohere
The twelfth century history of Ani and its environs is one of hostility
between the Georgians and the Shahdaddids for control of Ani and the
surrounding Armenian areas. The struggle was ended when Zakare and
Ivane Mkhagrdzeli, the Armenian generals who head the Georgian army
of Queen T'amar captured Ani in 1199. In 1201 it was formally given
to Zakare and Ivane by Queen T'amar, and within a few years most of
greater Armenian came under Georgian control. It is just in this period
that we have a documented reference to Ererouk by way of another inscription,
this time on the church of St. John (Hovhannes) in Ani. The church
was erected by Zakare according to the inscription he had carved on
the exterior of the southern wall. It reads in part: "In the
time. . . .of the Queen of Queens, I, Zakare. . . .High Constable
. . . built this monument in stone. . . and I gave as presents of
endowment: opposite this monastery and was formerly called Aver P'anduk,
and Ererouk (zErerus) with all of its lands . . . and the spring of
its flower garden. . . " Thus, Ererouk passed
EREROUK
PAGE EIGHT
under the control of the church of St. Hovhannesin Ani. The inscription
is not dated, but since Zakare and Queen T'amar both died in the same
year, 1221, it cannot be later than that date. Though the church could
have been built theoretically any time after the Mkhagredzeli's were
given Ani, 1201, according to Marr who lead the extensive excavation
there before 1208. Our second inscription then must date to circa
1208-1201.
These two inscriptions are the only known references to the name Ererouk
before the nineteenth century, when of course with the publication
of these inscriptions, the name entered Armenian Onomasticon. In neither
case do we find the name in its absolute or nominal form. Alishan's
suggestion of Ererouk "or Ererowac" has been generally accepted.
Marr on the basis of the 1038 inscription called it the place name
Ererui. Though neither of the two inscriptions specifies whether Ererouk
refers to the church or the village, we must assume the reference
is the place where the basilica was located rather than to the building
itself. Of course in practice, churches often took the name of their
city or village, e.g. the Ani Cathedral.
Once again we are left without testimony. T'oramanian reports an inscription
of the thirteenth century in or on the church itself, but without
further specification. Its fate under Mongol, then Turkoman and finally
Ottoman and Persian rule in Armenia is unknown. There us the very
vaguest sort of evidence by the way of two Greek inscriptions which
Marr says are late seventeenth-eighteenth century," the haphazard
exercises of visitors. These are probably the graffiti of western
travellers so common on antique monuments in the Near East.

EREROUK
PAGE NINE
There is no further evidence on the history of the basilica. In Shkhatunian's
time it was already a ruin. In its immediate environs he reports the
ruins of stone built dwellings, graves and the location was called
Kizil Kule, and the abandoned dwellings were occupied by Kurds. The
inscription 1038 was given as follows and the name Armenian for the
first time. By 1881 the date of the publication of Shirak, Alishan
speaks of the Russian guard post of Kizil
Kule (Red Tower), probably established sometime after the Russian
Turkish War of 1874-1876, north of which are the ruins. In 1896 Madame
H. Abich discusses the ruin and publishes the first plan of the church,
which she calls "Alam (Kissilkolba)". She must have confused
it with an Alam on the other side of the Akhurian River which can
be found on the Map accompanying Lynch's Armenia published in 1901,
but describing his travels of 1893-1894 and 1898. On Lynch's map,
Ererouk is not found. There is south of Alam Kizil-kule, but he places
like Alam to the west of the Akhurian, but on the east bank of a tributary
branch of the river. It is too far south to be our Kizil Kule and
is either another settlement with the same name or a mistake on Lynche's
part.
In 1907, Nicholas Marr, who had already been excavating at Ani, published
the first monograph devoted to Ererouk and its architecture. That
was followed in the next year by the first archaeological expedition
led by Marr. The team which spent a fortnight on the site, 23 July
to 8 August, was composed of T'oros T'oramanian as architect, A. Tetvadjian
and S. N. Poltaratzkin as artists, and included the students Hovsep
Orbeli and N. N. Tikhonov. The interior of the church was clear and
diggings made along the walls. All parts of the building were measured,
drawn and photographed. Some important stones, probably

EREROUK
PAGE TEN
khatchkars, carved with figures were removed to the museum in Ani,
ironically probably for safe keeping, and are of course lost today.
Marr during these days was also able to interview an old man from
the Kizil-Kule, which is referred to as a Kurdish village. The Kurd
Isa Abdu-oghli discussed at length the concaved depression near
the basilica filled with water in the spring and was used as a reservoir
during the hot, rainless summer. It had a system of dikes which
had now gone to ruin. More importantly Isa Abdu-
oghli told Marr that as far as he could remember, and that was at
least a half a century, the ruins were essentially as they are now,
i.e. 1908. This takes the history of the ruin back with in a decade
and a half of Shakhtunian's description, thus indicating its deserted
state went back to at least the first part if the nineteenth century.
A comparison of the engraving in Alishan and the photographs of
Marr show at a glance basic truth of Isa's statement. The old Kurd
also related that one of the Armenians who used to live in Kizil
Kule added that Armenians from the village of Kizil Kule had built
the Armenians of the village had erected the western transverse
wall or rebuilt the western transverse wall of the church. Marr
then wrote another article on the basilica as well as two full-length
studies in which the course of the excavations was reported. One
of the studies remained in manuscript until its publication in 1968.
In 1918 Josef Stryzgowski, relying heavily on the notes, surveys
and photographs of T. T'oramanian published his monumental Die Baukunst
der Armenier und Europe. It is mostly through this work that the
Ererouk basilica became known to a small number of specialists in
the west. In 1923 a shorter work in English also mentioned the structure
and provided a plan and a view. Since then it is mentioned in one
way or another by nearly every authority EREROUK
PAGE ELEVEN
writing on Armenian or early east Christian architecture. As for
the monument itself, T.oramanian reports that in 1928 thanks to
the efforts of academician A. I. Tamanian and the intercession of
Mravian, governments funds were provided the Committee for the Preservation
of Architectural Monuments of the Republic of Armenia S. S. R. Special
attention was given to those parts of the building which were in
danger of collapsing. There was in addition to the reinforcing
work, more clearing done in and around the edifice. T'ormanian also
adds that the former Kurdish Village, (Kizil Kule) no longer existed
and the basilica was in a totally deserted environment.
In 1948 the Committee for the Preservation of Monuments once again
conducted restoration work, this time under the supervision of architect
Alexadre Sahinian. The broken stone bearing the last lines of the
inscription of 1038 was restores to its original place, parts of
the walls were touched up, the right hand columns of the east portal
of the south wall was replaced, the facing stones of the south wall
were restored, and the stylobate was carefully cleared showing a
seven step gradient. Finally, in 1970 an Italian technical and research
mission composed of Adriano Alpago-Novello, Armen Manoukian and
Herman Vahramian, with the aid of the Monoukian Foundation of Milan
and at the invitation of the government of the Republic of Armenia
S. S. R. made a thorough survey of the church, with plans, elevations
and complete photographic record. This material will be used in
part for the preparation of A forthcoming volume devoted entirely
to Ererouk in the series Documents of Armenian Architecture produced
jointly by the Faculty of Architecture of the Polytechnic of Milan
and the Armenian Academy of Sciences. One waits anxiously for this
volume, hoping that the combined talents of those participating
will help clear up some of the mysteries behind this largest, but
historically least remembered Armenian Basilica.